The classic 7x42 porro comparison: Swarovski Habicht vs Hartmann Bernina (1 Viewer)

[Wasabrot]

I have currently the chance to compare my Hartmann Wetzlar Bernina 7x42 with my brothers Swarovski Habicht 7x42 so I will share here in the next days my observations.

According my research in the link below the Bernina with number 101203 must be manufactured in 1963/64.
Determining the date of manufacture of the Hartmann Wetzlar binoculars

The Habichts number is 730491 which should be made according John A Roberts research (Habicht 7x42 Question) around 1962/63, so it would be fair to compare of these beautiful classic porro 7x42 binoculars.

 

[Wasabrot]

Weight, size, mechanics

Next to the Habicht, the Bernina looks huge. With 15cm, Habicht is 2,5cm shorter than Bernina. Width is with 15-17,5cm also less than Berninas 16-18cm.


On the scale the Habicht shows 542g while Bernina has 686g.


Focus wheel and diopter is on Habicht much stiffer, but this would be porbably due to the old grease. I don't know if the Habicht was serviced in the last 60 years. Inside it looks very clean.
Bernina was opened and (non-profesional) cleaned by preowner. Maybe he exchanged grease too.
Both binoculars show no play in focus, mechanics are perfect.

 

[Pinewood]

Hello Wasabrot,

Judging by the diameter of the eyepieces, the Hartmann should have a wider field of view, with sufficiently large prisms. I had the Habicht, at one time. I found it to be well made but with a simple design, providing a narrow field of view.

Stay safe,
Arthur

 

[John A Roberts]

For some more on the eyepiece used in the 7x42 (and 6x30) Habicht, see post #128 at: Why are those dang Habicht's so BRIGHT!

There are two versions with the same basic pattern (3 lenses in 2 groups), but differing in detail.
As can be seen, Wasabrot's unit has the first version.


John

 

[Wasabrot]

FoV, Close focus, Eyepieces

I tried measure FoV and came to a result of 117m on1000m for the Habicht. From specs I know it should be 114m. Yes the Habicht has a tunnel view.
The Bernina has an even smaller FoV with measured 111m on 1000m but sharp area reaches closer to edge than at Habicht.
The upper image shows the Habicht and the lower one the Bernina.
Both show a great FoD providing a sharp image from ~25m to infinity.

Close focus of the Habicht was measured as 3,5m while Bernina has a measured close focus of 4,8m.

Here is also an image of the different eyepiece types of this two binoculars.

 

[Patudo]

Thanks for your posts and photos Wasabrot. I'd have expected the larger Hartmann to have a wider field of view, but it appears not. Photos suggest slightly more neutral colour rendition in the Hartmann (to my eyes).

Can the Hartmann be used with glasses (longer eye relief)?

I haven't handled a Habicht from that period but the mechanicals of the West German binoculars I have tried from that era are outstanding - they're an absolute pleasure to use.

 

[Wasabrot]

Coatings, Colour rendition
Both binoculars have the purple double layer coatings typical for this era.
While the Habicht has this yellow cast typical for such coatings (also known at russian and CZJ binoculars with MC from this time) the Bernina shows indeed more natural colours.
My single coated Hartmann Porlerim 8x30 has compareable colour rendition but is much darker (grayish) and had not the incredible resolution and contrast to which I will come in a later post.) My Hartmann Compact 10x40WW for example has with same purple coatings a much stronger yellow cast than the Habicht.

But lets come back to Bernina and Habicht.
You can see already the difference of colour rendition when sun light shines through the binoculars on a white sheet of paper.

The difference becomes more clear when making photos directly through objective with same settings. Upper pictures are the Bernina, the belows are the Habicht.

And now the two circles side by side with the Bernina on the left.

Eye relief is longer at Bernina than at Habicht but due to the hard Bakelit eyecups it is not comfortable to use the Bernina with glasses. But I will try tomorrow and give a report of my experience.

 

[Thotmosis]

Very interesting comparison Wasabrot, looking forward to the next report 👍

 

[Wasabrot]

Eye relief, Stray light resistance, Optics

I have measured at Habicht an eye relief of 6mm to eye cups plus 9mm from eyecup to ocular, in total 15mm. Specs says 14mm so measurement is not perfect but also not completly false. At Bernina i have measured 10mm plus 8mm, in total.

With glasses pressed against eyecups of Bernina I still have the full (small) FoV but the hard Bakelit eye cups gives you not a good feeling when in contact with glasses. So in theory the Bernina is glasses suitable but in reality its not.

After some test in darkness I can say,
Berina is not that sensitiv on stray light as Habicht even Habicht uses riffels in there internal objective barrel. Bernina is more dark inside the barrel. Bernina is also a little bit brighter than Habicht. I tried to varify this with pictures but I didn't managed it yet.

While Bernina is collimated very well, with Habicht I see double stars which move together after few seconds.

The collimation mechanics for Hartmann binoculars before Compact line makes it very easy to collimate the Bernina. Prisms are fixed via metal wedges which can be moved via screws under the objective plate screws. So you can look through the bino while making adjustments with a screwdriver.

How will a Habicht he be collimated? Remove beauty ring and adjust via objective lens excenter rings?

Bernina shows better contrast, better resolution (it feels like 8 times or even more magnifcation due to details it can resolve). This good resolution is only topped by my NL pure (be aware that other than NL pure I have only vintage binoculars to compare).

Berina easily shows Jupiter with his 4 Galileo moons, Habicht has problems to resolve all four moons.

 

[Patudo]

I have measured at Habicht an eye relief of 6mm to eye cups plus 9mm from eyecup to ocular, in total 15mm. Specs says 14mm so measurement is not perfect but also not completly false. At Bernina i have measured 10mm plus 8mm, in total.

Interesting. Some of the Cloudynights users remove the eyecups and glue a rubber O-ring to act as a cushion against glasses. I'm not sure I would want to do this with a fine classic binocular myself, but that would definitely add some eye relief as well as making for a contact surface that is better on glasses than the hard Bakelite.

If you know someone handy with a lathe it might be possible to get a custom set of eyecups made. How important is it for you to use glasses when using binoculars?

111m is pretty narrow, but if it's sharp all the way to the edge I suppose it's OK. I've gotten used to 105m with my Nikon 10x42 SE and have also used a Zeiss West 8x30B with 110m. I have to admit it would be nice if both had wider fields, but they function all right.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Wasabrot, post 1,
Interesting comparison.
A couple of years ago during a meeting of the Binocular History Society in Vancouver, I have presented a power point presentation about the history and performance of Hartmann binoculars. I had visited the Hartmann company a number of times before it closed down and I learned to know the company and mr. Hartmann quite well.
For the presentation at the BHS meeting I had investigated a number of Hartmann binoculars in comparison with binoculars from other brands, you can find it all on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Wasabrot]

Interesting. Some of the Cloudynights users remove the eyecups and glue a rubber O-ring to act as a cushion against glasses. I'm not sure I would want to do this with a fine classic binocular myself, but that would definitely add some eye relief as well as making for a contact surface that is better on glasses than the hard Bakelite.

If you know someone handy with a lathe it might be possible to get a custom set of eyecups made. How important is it for you to use glasses when using binoculars?

111m is pretty narrow, but if it's sharp all the way to the edge I suppose it's OK. I've gotten used to 105m with my Nikon 10x42 SE and have also used a Zeiss West 8x30B with 110m. I have to admit it would be nice if both had wider fields, but they function all right.

Because I had only vintage binoculars unitl I buyed myself my first modern bino this summer (8x42 NL pure), i'm used to have no glasses while using binos. My astigmatism is not that much that it makes problems. I even never noticted it before I got my NL.
So I will leaveand enjoy them in original state.
The Bernina with a wide field must be a dream.
The Hartmann Compact 7x42 has for example 150m@1000m. I would like have a look through them.